A's interested in Cuban defector Arguelles

by NateHST on Nov 25, 2009 10:26 AM PST

The A's season is over. The minor league season is over. The AFL is over. This is a sad time for baseball fans, and with Beane's recent comments that the A's likely will not make a big splash (or even a little tiny splash) in the free agent market this year, it looks like it will be a long winter with very little news for A's fans.

Having said that, I saw an interesting blurb on mlbtraderumors.com last night [see what I did there, Larry David/Curb Your Enthusiasm fans?]. All the piece said was that the A's, Mariners, Rays and Yankees were interested in Cuban defector Noel Arguelles, a left-handed pitcher. Never heard of him, so I did some research.

First of all, the blurb on MLBTR mentions the A's were among the teams interested, but the article focuses on the A's interest in the 19-year old. Forst and Beane both met with Arguelles recently on a trip to the Dominican. The article has almost no information on him other than he's 6'3", ~200 pounds, that he impressed scouts in a recent workout, and that he figures to receive a contract similar to Dayan Viciedo and Jose Iglesias, somewhere in the range of $8-10MM.

Here is a quote from Baseball America:

"It's a three-quarters slot with a clean stroke," the scout said. "He's very intriguing." Another scout said Arguelles reminded him in some ways of Twins lefty Francisco Liriano." [The article also said] Arguelles has impressed with his work ethic

Here is a quote from Baseball Prospectus:

"Arguelles is considered a better prospect than Iglesias, as a left hander standing 6’3, tipping the scales at 210 lbs., and hitting 93 mph with his fastball. Arguelles has a solid curveball, changeup, and command, along with a recently-added slider that some scouts say has quickly become his best off-speed pitch. Some scouts saw him sitting at 88 mph recently and said Arguelles was out of shape, but other clubs have recently watched him hit 91 mph and say his body isn’t a big concern. Every team I’ve spoken with is comfortable with his talent, given his consistent international performances. Executives agree that Arguelles would have been a late first rounder or sandwich pick in the recent draft, if he entered the draft rather than become a free agent."

Also in the article is that there were some rumors that Arguelles might not be 19 like he said, but of course this isn't an uncommon problem with international prospects.

Here is the only video I could find of him, but he does look pretty athletic, and his windup does look fairly smooth.

It's not that I'm claiming the A's are frontrunners for Arguelles, but like I said, this appears to be shaping up to be a very slow off-season, so I figured I would put together a little something about a player that probably isn't well known. The A's were rumored to be interested, but the Yankees figure to be in the lead for in the Aroldis Chapman sweepstakes, but if Arguelles fell into A's hands, it wouldn't be too bad a consolation prize.

Anyways, here is where you all discuss it. Would you rather they spend the money on the "traditional" free agents? A third basemen perhaps?

Tweet Comment 56 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I say spend the money on int'l pitchers like these possibilities,

and trade for your left side of the INF. Staying out of the major league FA pool is generally a good idea for low budget teams; spend that money on pitching and get into that yummy pool of Int’l talent.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 25, 2009 10:35 AM PST reply actions

If, as you allude to, he's older than he's claimed to be, that would presumably be an attractive thing

if he’s beyond the injury nexus (the nexus of doom?), no?

Assuming he’s not, yknow, 43 or something.

I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does

by bobnothing on Nov 25, 2009 11:05 AM PST reply actions

AND not Benjamin Button

If he’s 43 and Benjamin Button, it could still work.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 25, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions

curious

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Nov 25, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions

well played

"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Nov 25, 2009 3:02 PM PST up reply actions

ty

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Nov 25, 2009 9:09 PM PST up reply actions

I don't think he is lying about the age

He was on 2007 “18 and under” Cuban national team.

Have a glove you could spare for a good cause? If so please let me know

by elcroata on Nov 25, 2009 11:56 AM PST reply actions

I think you mean

“Having said that….”

by chipper1001 on Nov 25, 2009 12:21 PM PST reply actions

In which case the sentence would have to continue with

“I saw an” rather than “there was an”. Otherwise it dangles unattractively.

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Nov 25, 2009 12:52 PM PST up reply actions

Fixed

If you think Billy Beane is a bad GM, I hate you and find you stupid.

by NateHST on Nov 25, 2009 12:55 PM PST up reply actions

Now that is TOTALLY what she said.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 25, 2009 1:45 PM PST up reply actions

She didn't say it, more kinda looked disappointed and walked away

I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does

by bobnothing on Nov 25, 2009 5:49 PM PST up reply actions

You get that too?

by ozzman99 on Nov 25, 2009 10:09 PM PST up reply actions

I not only see what you did there, I recommend it.

As I see it, it’s probably better for the A’s to spend their limited resources on future wins than most considerations for 2010.

by rebus on Nov 25, 2009 1:08 PM PST reply actions

For the right price

Yes please.

Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-

by Daniel777 on Nov 25, 2009 2:03 PM PST reply actions

Slightly OT

But still relevant in terms of the A’s acquiring players, what does the community think about trying to go for Curtis Granderson? The rumors out there seem to suggest that the Tigers are more than willing to listen to offers for him and with our cache of youngsters we would seem to be a good fit.

I don’t know the Tigers’ system all that well but I’m sure something like Mazzaro/Brown or Desme/G. Gonzalez could get it done. Or you could sub Cahill in there or give them Davis as well so they have a cheap CFer while the other guys develop more. Would that package be too much/little for a player of Granderson’s caliber? He’s signed through 2013 to a verrry reasonably contract ($5.5M next year and increasingly slightly each year until he makes $13M in 2013) so it’s not like he’d be hitting the FA market soon or cost us a fortune each year.

I’m not sure if this has been discussed already so I’m sorry if it has but this thread seems like a good one in which to discuss this possibility.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Nov 25, 2009 2:35 PM PST reply actions

grandersons "caliber"

is a guy who has a 484 OPS agianst LHP.

thats like, an NL pitchers OPS. he’s not worth much outside of being healthy and getting like 800 PA’s a year that elevate his raw numbers and hide his not very good metrics. i do not support this idea.

by PL78 on Nov 25, 2009 2:50 PM PST up reply actions

Boy do I disagree

The guy is an accomplished CFer who hits doubles, triples, and HRs like they’re going out of style. If he could be had for Mazzaro/Brown or Desme/Gio I’d do it in a minute.

If you’re so bothered by how he hits LHP (which really just means he’s THAT good against RHP to put up his overall numbers), pick some starts against LHP for his “get some days off,” and let Rajai Davis, or Scott Hairston get a start. Now you have an MVP candidate as one of your three OFers.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 25, 2009 3:53 PM PST up reply actions

He should get all days against left-handers "off"

There’s no excuse for ever starting Curtis Granderson against a lefty. He also needs to hit outside the core part of the lineup so that he won’t become an automatic out in the late innings when the other team uses lefty relievers against him.

That’s not to say he’s not valuable— he’s a mega-talent against right-handed pitching. But at this point it’s pretty clear that he cannot and will not ever hit left-handed pitchers.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 25, 2009 4:47 PM PST up reply actions

See my "just for kicks," below!

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 25, 2009 4:52 PM PST up reply actions

Yes, I think he would actually fit into the current A's team just fine

The trick is, of course, finding a way to get him without giving up a bunch of the future.

They also might force any team trading for him to eat one of their expiring contracts, and I don’t know if the A’s are willing to.

by PaulThomas on Nov 25, 2009 5:00 PM PST up reply actions

What are the Tigers currently seeking? What do you think a deal would look like?

From the A’s POV, I’d certainly like to see an OF of, say,

vs. RHP: Cunningham in LF, Granderson in CF, Sweeney in RF
vs LHP: Hairston in LF, Sweeney in CF, Cunningham in RF

I think the A’s could afford the contract, as it essentially will replace Chavez’, is for a good offensive player at a premium position, and (unlike Holliday) sets them up through 2013. The question is what it would cost them in trade.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 25, 2009 5:16 PM PST up reply actions

vs. RHP: Cunningham in LF, Granderson in CF, Sweeney in RF
vs LHP: Hairston in LF, Sweeney in CF, Cunningham in RF

So you’re assuming Rajai goes in any Granderson trade?
I actually liked LF Granderson/Hairston, CF Rajai, RF Sweeney more.

I wonder if they’d consider Cahill for Grandy straight up?

Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-

by Daniel777 on Nov 25, 2009 5:59 PM PST up reply actions

LOL -- I TOTALLY spaced out on him

Which is unacceptable, since he’s my mom’s favorite player and he is NOT to be traded.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 25, 2009 6:09 PM PST up reply actions

And you call yourself a blogfather of an A's site (whatever that is)

For shame.

Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-

by Daniel777 on Nov 25, 2009 6:15 PM PST up reply actions

Of course the A's can afford Granderson

But if the Tigers dump on Ordonez or Willis and ask for very little in the trade? That the A’s might not be able to afford.

"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton

by vignette17 on Nov 25, 2009 6:02 PM PST up reply actions

Ordonez is unmovable

Not only is his contract an unacceptable financial risk for any team, he has 10-and-5 rights.

If they’re going to dump salaries, I think the best candidates are Nate Robertson (who is certainly not worth $10M, but is at least above replacement level as a pitcher) and Brandon Inge. They’ll hang on to Bonderman until the deadline so they can flip him if he’s healthy and productive and they aren’t in contention. Willis is just a total writeoff.

So, let’s assume they decide to dump those 3 salaries. Robertson gets moved for an organizational player and $7M-ish in salary relief.

Now, the A’s want Granderson and can use Inge, too, so let’s do a trade for both of those guys. Inge is just slightly underpaid for what he projects to do next season. Granderson projects to produce around 15.5 WAR for the rest of his contract; for that, he’s getting paid $36.75M, or about 9 WAR worth of money.

So we need about $30M of surplus value in prospects to even out the trade. One way of doing most of this is just to deal them the A’s best hitting prospect. The average hitter appearing between #11 and #50 on BA’s Top 100 provides about $24M in surplus value, and both Chris Carter and Brett Wallace look headed to do that. That being said, I think the A’s need to keep their elite hitters if they want to have a decent offense going forward.

There are a few other hitters with some chance of making the top 100 (Cardenas, Weeks, Desme, Brown). (Grant Green will also probably make the top 100, and there’s a shot in the dark that Max Stassi might, but they’re untradeable for now.) Let’s say for argument’s sake that they have a 50% chance of appearing on the list, and split the difference in value between the generic B grade (they will all be in the B range) and #51-100. That gives those guys a surplus value of about $9.5M [note to WaddellCanseco: worth more than a late-first-round pick…].

I don’t believe the A’s have any top 100 pitchers at the moment. They do have some no-longer-prospect-eligible pitchers like Cahill and Gio Gonzalez, though. Cahill’s stock is down but surely he’s at least in the 51-75 range. Gio and Mazzaro are probably more like 76-100 or lower.

Detroit also likes flamethrowers, so I’ll assume they value Henry Rodriguez at $5M and make sure to include him in the deal.

A plausible trade therefore would be something like:

Cahill
Brown
Rodriguez
Eveland

I’d love to take Brown out of there and replace him with Davis, but that’s just not going to wash. They want some prospects with upside and Davis’s value is much more in the “reliably non-terrible” area. And Brown seems to fit better than Desme because of their, and Granderson’s, respective handedness.

If you’re wondering why Eveland is in there, a. he’s basically a free version of Nate Robertson and I have them dumping Robertson’s salary, and b. I needed a C prospect in return for Brandon Inge. I could see them going for a different kind of C prospect with more upside though (Nino Leyja? They do need some infielders…).

by PaulThomas on Nov 25, 2009 7:20 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Boy I'd do that deal in a heartbeat

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 25, 2009 7:28 PM PST up reply actions

Yes, I don't see Detroit trading Granderson to Oakland without

either Carter or Wallace in the deal. Wallace might make sense though. Beane seems unconvinced he can stay at 3B and if the Tigers are trading Miguel Cabrera separately, they might want Wallace for 1B.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 26, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions

Or since Detroit has a fair amount of power,

they might be interested in Barton?

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 26, 2009 2:39 PM PST up reply actions

Wallace probably has more trade value than Barton though.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 26, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions

The chances of Cabrera being moved are, IMO, zero

He has a huge contract. He’s probably worth it, but doesn’t really have any surplus value. The huge contract makes it so that only very large-market teams could consider acquiring him. The Tigers have no adequate replacement (I suppose a Granderson trade would rectify that, but arranging it so both deals go through is logistically challenging).

More to the point, though, he’s the team’s star player. Moving him is practically punting contention for the foreseeable future (not to mention admitting the failure of the original effort to bring him in).

As GMs go, I’d think (to borrow a metaphor) that the water Dave Dombrowski is sitting in is at least warm, with all the bad contracts he’s been handing out lately.

I can’t see it happening.

by PaulThomas on Nov 26, 2009 3:05 PM PST up reply actions

Actually if I were the Tigers, I'd just grit my teeth through

2010 and exhale when the bad contracts expired at the end of the year.

If they trade anyone, it might be Verlander, since pitchers are brittle as a group, and they can probably fill a bunch of holes by trading him.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 26, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions

So we get Grandy and 1 year of Brandon Inge for that?

Brown is the only player I rate/like in that package, so yes please.

Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-

by Daniel777 on Nov 25, 2009 7:51 PM PST up reply actions

I like that deal.

Do you really think Detroit would go for that? I love Brown, and though I’m not a big Cahill fan, he’s valuable. But still well worth it. (And I really won’t miss Eveland or H-Rod at all.)

I agree that the Tigers would have no interest in Rajai Davis, but do you think they might ask for Ryan Sweeney?

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Nov 25, 2009 8:16 PM PST up reply actions

He's just not a Tigers kind of player

They seem to value home runs over almost anything else offensively. I mean, look at how long they employed Craig Monroe and Marcus Thames.

by PaulThomas on Nov 25, 2009 9:25 PM PST up reply actions

They also employed Polanco and C. Guillen

I do agree they have a love for fireballers; I’m not as aware of them having a particular affinity for HR-hitters so much as they wound up with a few that they kept. But maybe they do and I just missed the memo.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 25, 2009 9:33 PM PST up reply actions

Carlos Guillen is hardly some kind of slap-hitter

He has an ISO of .160 for his career. That’s basically league-average.

by PaulThomas on Nov 26, 2009 1:26 AM PST up reply actions

Granderson is owed quite a bit of money over the next few years.

$5.5MM in 2010, $8.25MM in 2011, $10MM in 2012, and options after that. WIth Davis, Sweeney and Hairston all capable of playing CF, and Corey Brown getting closer, I don’t think CF is a dire need for the A’s right now. He’s a very good player, but I don’t know if the A’s would want to take on a fairly substantial contract at this point.

If you think Billy Beane is a bad GM, I hate you and find you stupid.

by NateHST on Nov 25, 2009 2:50 PM PST up reply actions

Well

If you’re going to get a player Granderson seems to be a perfect fit. It’s true he’s owed some money but it’s not going to be an albatross of a contract and I’m sure we could always move him at a later time if need be, not that I’d advocate that. It’d be nice to have at least 1 for sure offensive player in our lineup once the young guns start to arrive and Granderson certainly is that type of player.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Nov 25, 2009 4:14 PM PST up reply actions

Just for kicks,

if you had platooned Granderson and Hairston in 2009, their respective splits produced:

.284/.362/.540 (.902 OPS) with 33 HRs, 31 2Bs, 9 3Bs, and 21 SBs in 26 tries.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 25, 2009 4:38 PM PST up reply actions

Against LHP

You can drop Granderson to the bottom part of the order and then replace him later in the game if need be (meaning a good LOOGY has been spat) but I wouldn’t sit him every time a lefty is starting because there’s the off-chance that he can still do good things with the bat and his defense is good enough to warrant him starting.

And then when a righty is starting, meaning a majority of the time, you’ve got a genuine MVP-caliber player in the heart of your order.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Nov 25, 2009 4:57 PM PST up reply actions

He's been below replacement level for his career against lefthanded pitching.

Given that the A’s have not one but TWO right-handed CF candidates who struggle (relatively speaking) against lefties, it would be incomprehensible for them to start Granderson against any lefthanded pitcher.

by PaulThomas on Nov 25, 2009 5:09 PM PST up reply actions

Oh I understand

But I find it hard to believe that any team would bench Granderson every time they face a lefty, no matter what the stats say. Which is why I said what I said above; a sort of compromise I suppose.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Nov 25, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions

The reason that they would not bench him

is that they’re pathetic wussies who are willing to damage the team to stroke the guy’s ego.

It has nothing to do with strategy.

by PaulThomas on Nov 26, 2009 1:21 AM PST up reply actions

If Thomas of Ockham were a solipsist,

he would explain all human behavior that he doesn’t understand as a result of others being stupid or pathetic. After all, nothing could be simpler.

Is it possible that if Granderson were benched against lefties, the missed time would affect his success against righties as well?

Has that been studied? It’s conventional wisdom (which I realize doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true) that hitters benefit from more playing time. Is this benefit generic across both handednesses, in which case platooning a player could diminish his hitting over all, or does losing playing time against LH pitchers only hurt one’s hitting against LH pitchers?

If it’s the latter, then you can platoon him with impunity. If it’s the former, then you need to quantify the cost and decide if it’s still worth it to pull him against LH pitchers.

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Nov 26, 2009 2:07 AM PST up reply actions

Granderson also held his own in the 2008 sample (.739 OPS)

It’s more clear that he’s a “.500-.750 OPS” guy against LHP than a “.500-.550” one, which is how you make it sound, PT.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 26, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions

The .500 seems highly unlikely. Shouldn't we regress the platoon

split toward the average platoon split in determining his probable performance vs lefties — the way Paul Thomas did here for Ryan Howard?

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 26, 2009 2:38 PM PST up reply actions

As highly unlikely as it may seem,

Granderson has “surpassed” it in 2 of the last 3 seasons. So it’s not outrageous to imagine him putting up a sub .500 OPS vs. LHP in 2010.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 26, 2009 2:40 PM PST up reply actions

Believe me, I parsed my words very carefully here

A .500 OPS is indeed unlikely, which is why I did not say that that was what he was going to put up.

Once you take his career numbers and regress his platoon split about halfway toward league average, which is basically where he’s at since he’s had about 700 PA, his projected OPS against lefties comes out at something like .675. If you were to start him in an entire season of play against lefthanders, probability says that he would likely be about a 1 WAR player. (Track record says worse, but as noted, we still have to regress the observed split heavily.)

The A’s can do way, way better than that. A full season worth of PA versus lefties from Scott Hairston would probably be in the neighborhood of 4 WAR; from Davis, I’d expect at least 2.5.

And indeed, given the ease with which teams can find righthanded platoon outfielders for very cheap, there is simply no justificiation for ANY team’s failing to acquire one (if you do not already have one) in preference to starting Curtis Granderson against lefties.

by PaulThomas on Nov 26, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions

This may be true, but I don't see the A's paying Hairston to

sit on the bench 2/3 of the time. I’d think Granderson becomes their full time LF (if Sweeney isn’t part of the deal) and maybe Cunningham could platoon with him. Granderson’s defensive advantage over Cunningham might make that not worthwhile though.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 26, 2009 4:07 PM PST up reply actions

I don't understand

Right now the A’s have at least 3 outfielders that are better than Curtis Granderson against lefthanders and possibly as many as 6 (if you include Buck, Cunningham and, really stretching, Desme).

The correct play, from a strategy standpoint, is to play those 3 outfielders and sit Granderson.

I don’t get what Hairston or his salary have to do with this. If he’s one of the best 3 outfielders against righthanded pitching, which is probably true, then he would start against righthanders. If not, then he wouldn’t.

by PaulThomas on Nov 26, 2009 6:17 PM PST up reply actions

I didn't say it was strategic

They are wussies, and wussies don’t platoon “superstars” like Granderson no matter what those icky stats may tell them.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Nov 26, 2009 2:40 PM PST up reply actions

He looks like Francisco Liriano

His physical build and his mechanics. He looks pretty baby-faced, too. If he’s not 19, well…he’s definitely not much older than that.

If they could get him on a minor league deal for $10M, sounds good to me. No way should they sign him to a major league deal and start burning option years on a guy who is 2-3 seasons away still.

Given the character question marks most insiders seem to have regarding Chapman, I guess I’d rather throw a smaller sum of money Arguelles’ way, despite the lower ceiling.

Batting 4th for the 2014 San Jose A's: 26-year-old RF Justin Upton, in the 1st season of a nine year, $250M deal.

by notsellingjeans on Nov 25, 2009 2:38 PM PST reply actions

If I could change anything about mlbTR

it would be to add a filter so it would delete all posts that have the word “interested” in the title.

of course all teams are interested in all players, this is just a giant waste of time. if the player comes out and says “ive narrowed it down to the A’s and the Yankees” THEN you have a story.

by PL78 on Nov 25, 2009 2:47 PM PST reply actions